United Voice

[2013] FWCA 5942

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/7945)

MELBOURNE CITY MISSION - HARTNETT HOUSE CHILDREN’S CENTRE AND UNITED VOICE PROFESSIONAL CHILDCARE STANDARD 2013

Children’s services
COMMISSIONER BISSETT	MELBOURNE, 20 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Melbourne City Mission - Hartnett House Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Melbourne City Mission - Hartnett House Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by United Voice. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] In accordance with s.190 of the Act I sought undertakings from the employer with respect to the Agreement. I have accepted the undertakings provided.

[3] In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertakings is attached as an annexure to this decision.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The United Voice, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 27 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by United Voice, a union representing employees, for the approval of the Melbourne City Mission - Hartnett House Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013. The dispute centred around the need to formalise a set of employment standards for workers in the childcare sector, specifically those employed at the Hartnett House Children’s Centre. The Commission was tasked with assessing whether the proposed standard would appropriately regulate employment conditions, including wages, hours of work, leave entitlements, and other workplace rights and obligations.

The legal issues at hand required the Commission to determine if the proposed standard accurately reflected the needs of the employees and the operational requirements of the Hartnett House Children’s Centre. This involved examining the content of the standard against the backdrop of existing employment laws and ensuring that it did not unfairly disadvantage either party. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider whether the standard provided adequate protections and benefits for the employees while maintaining the operational flexibility necessary for the centre to function effectively.

The Commission deliberated on the submissions made by United Voice and the Melbourne City Mission, evaluating the proposed standard's provisions in detail. It was crucial for the Commission to ensure that the standard provided a fair balance between the rights and obligations of the employees and the operational needs of the employer. After careful consideration, the Commission found that the proposed standard was well-drafted and would adequately protect the rights of the employees while allowing the centre to operate efficiently. The Commission approved the standard, recognising its potential to enhance the working conditions for childcare workers.

As a result of the approval, the Melbourne City Mission - Hartnett House Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013 became a legally binding document governing the employment conditions of workers at the centre. This decision not only formalised the terms and conditions of employment for the staff but also set a precedent for similar standards in the childcare sector across Australia.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established